Am 26.10.2011 13:55, schrieb Martin Millnert:
Knowing you represent Go6, I do wonder what operators are requesting this. It wouldn't hurt if they came here and voiced their opinions directly either. The APWG-ml community is not a 1:1 map to RIPE region operators, so the community response you will get here may or may not be what you want.
We'll not go for 6RD. But if we would it would be easier with a simple mapping mechanism. Not only from the technical point of view. Complexity is sometimes not easy to sell to everyone inside the company. Especially if you have several v4 /15, /16, /.... and dynamic dial-in-pools for residential customers distributed over all of them and also inside every prefix. For example an easy to understand mechanism may help to answer support calls. Another example. From time to time the firwall / server people are asking for a list of all our dial-in-pools in order to configure access lists for services or spam fighting or .... It's additional work (for people, firewalls, loadbalancers, servers...) to take care about a list of prefixes instead one prefix. If we would like to introduce 6RD it would be much easier with a /29 and a subnetting plan. Just keep it simple. But we want to do native v6 and we need additional bits to make the v6 pools on our access routers big enough for all our residential customers from the beginning. Fortunately the policy text itself is not mentioning 6RD and so it solves our problem too. Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Geschäftsführer Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher) Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 Köln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln